I run two miles a day, and I was wondering if it matters if I break it up into 1 mile morning, 1 mile evening or if I have to do both miles at the same time like to keep my heart rate up.
I run two miles a day, and I was wondering if it matters if I break it up into 1 mile morning, 1 mile evening or if I have to do both miles at the same time like to keep my heart rate up.
"You have demonic genius" -Naomi Wolf
"I very much resent it when people - maybe with good intentions or from a progressive point of view - keep telling me, 'It's their culture' ... It's like saying the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches." -Azar Nafisi
I've heard that it doesn't matter. I hardly run, so I don't know for sure. But I've read several times in womans mags that breaking up workouts into 10 or 20 min incraments a enough times a day to equal 30 - 60 min of activity is just as good if not better than doing it all at once. How it would be better? I have no idea, but I've read that a few times.
" Remember during each test there is some girl in Australia jealous of you who wants to do what you're doing."- Lilithmorrigan
" If you're young and sexy, why not spend a few years Shopping and Fucking? Life is short, but youth is shorter. Ride the wheels off, I say." - FeministStripper
No, it does not take away or add how many calories you burn. When you are running, walking, sprinting, jumping, whatever, your body is doing work. Basic physics states that
"Work=Force times Displacement(distance)." Work is the transfer of energy.
You are doing the same amount of work either way you talked about doing your workout.
You could even walk those two miles. The same amt of work is still being done.
Sorry if this was vague, but it was the only way I knew to explain it...
Ooops sorry. Just read the rest of your post. Cardiovascularly, *sp* it does matter. Not the time of day, but the type of workout, and the intensity. Walking two miles may get your heartrate going at an aerobic pace, but sprinting during the walk, or running for a couple min. elevates your heartrate, and causes your heart muscles to work harder, hense, get stronger eventually. Getting your body to go "anerobic" *sp again* is the key. This causes you to build up your heart muscle.
So is it better to maintain your heartrate at the aerobic level for longer during one workout or would there be benefit in actually working up to that aerobic heartrate from your resting heartrate 2 times?
(ie: Like how you burn more gas when you do stop and go driving than if you drove at a steady speed for longer.)
The best, most effective form of cardio is HIIT: High Intensity Interval Training.
If you don't know what that is, let me know.





In terms of building your endurance level and cardiovascular fitness, it's probably better to do the two mile run. But I would imagine that two 1 mile runs would be quite beneficial as well. I'm just speculating here I really don't know for sure.
I think when you do something cardio for a longer period of time you experience things you don't when its just in shorter stints..
If you go for at least 45 min you start to experience the "high" that I can't get with a shorter work out... I think that high is something good for the body to experience or it wouldnt feel so good...
but you could try both and just see how you feel.. its all about what works for you
"You have demonic genius" -Naomi Wolf
"I very much resent it when people - maybe with good intentions or from a progressive point of view - keep telling me, 'It's their culture' ... It's like saying the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches." -Azar Nafisi
I second that. Don't have time to write out an explanation, so here's the first result of a Google search: http://www.musclemedia.com/training/hiit.asp.
After briefly skimming the article, it looks to be more male-muscle building oriented, but the fat-burning, metabolic, and conditioning principles of HIIT remain the same for any type of person.
I'm starting to get excited, so I'll stop.
Bookmarks